Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Islamabad Marquees, Catering And Banquet Hall Association (Imcba)2021 MLD 235 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Electric Supply Company Ltd. (IESCO) and 3 others vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Islamabad and others2022 SCMR 722, 2022 PTD 765, PTCL 2022 CL. 725, 2022 PCTLR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-02-15
  sales taxoutput taxinput tax adjustmenttax liabilitycollecting agentspecial procedure ruleselectricity distribution companies
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed by electricity distribution companies (DISCOs) against the Commissioner Inland Revenue regarding the classification of sales tax collected from steel-melting and re-rolling units. The core legal question was whether the additional sales tax collected by DISCOs from these consumers, pursuant to Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007, constituted part of the DISCOs' own output tax liability or if it was a separate tax liability of the consumers merely collected by the DISCOs as agents. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower forums, holding that the tax collected under Rule 58H is a distinct liability of the consumers. The Court reasoned that DISCOs merely act as collecting agents for administrative convenience, and this mechanism does not merge the consumers' tax liability with the DISCOs' own output tax. Consequently, the DISCOs cannot treat the collected amount as their own output tax. The principle established is that the administrative utilization of a third party to collect tax does not alter the underlying legal nature of the tax liability or conflate the liabilities of the collector and the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the collection of sales tax from consumers via electricity bills by a distribution company make that tax part of the company's own output tax liability?
  • Is the tax liability of steel-melting and re-rolling units under Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules 2007 distinct from the output tax liability of the electricity distribution company?
  • Can an electricity distribution company claim input tax adjustment for sales tax collected from consumers under Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules 2007?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs National Electric Power2021 IHC 256, 2021 PLD Islamabad 221, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 318, 2022 [M] CLR · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
• Islamabad Bar Association through its President, Islamabad Bar-District2021 P SC 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-02
  encroachmentpublic parkillegal constructionCapital Development AuthoritySupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition involving the unauthorized construction of lawyers' chambers and court structures on public land designated as a football ground and park in Sector F-8, Islamabad. The core legal question concerns the encroachment of public parks and recreational spaces by professional bodies and judicial structures. The Supreme Court disposed of the petition based on the undertaking given by the petitioner's counsel that the illegal structures and chambers constructed on the football ground and park would be vacated within two months. Furthermore, the Court directed the Capital Development Authority and District Administration to demolish all illegal buildings upon vacation, ordered the Registrar of the Islamabad High Court to ensure the removal of court structures and their relocation to proper premises, and mandated compliance reports from both the petitioner's counsel and the High Court Registrar. The key principle laid down is that public amenities such as parks and playgrounds must be protected from encroachment and illegal constructions, and unauthorized structures thereon must be promptly removed and restored to their original public use.

  Questions settled

  • Can unauthorized structures constructed by lawyers and courts on public land designated for a football ground and park be ordered to be removed?
  • What is the procedure for clearing illegal constructions and restoring public parks to their original use in Islamabad?
  • Whether an undertaking given by counsel to vacate encroached public land within a specified timeframe binds the association.
  Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Hussain and another vs The State and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 94, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 449, 2021 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-23
  murderocular accountmedical evidenceconflict of evidenceinjured witnessacquittalfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court which had altered the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while upholding the acquittal of his co-accused sons. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his sons ambushed the deceased and others, resulting in one death and injuries to a witness. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the ocular account was reliable given major discrepancies with the medical evidence. The Court observed that the injured witness's testimony regarding his own injury contradicted the medical report, which showed a firearm injury instead of a dagger wound. Furthermore, the ocular account regarding the deceased's fatal wound was inconsistent with the autopsy report, which revealed an entry wound on the back of the chest rather than the front of the neck as initially reported. The Court held that the ocular account was inherently flawed, reflecting an attempt to falsely implicate an entire family. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of an injured witness at the crime scene automatically guarantees the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a stark conflict between the ocular account and the medical/autopsy reports?
  • What is the legal effect of a complainant casting a wide net to indiscriminately implicate an entire family in a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmad vs Zonal Head, State Life Of Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan etc2021 PLJ Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ishfaq Hussain alias Shahqa vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1427 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01
  narcotic drugschemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealstatutory complianceacquittalnarcotic control
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused, particularly concerning the evidentiary value of the Chemical Examiner's report. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge because the Chemical Examiner's report did not comply with the mandatory testing protocols prescribed under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that failure to detail the test protocols renders such reports inconclusive, unreliable, and insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, render a Chemical Examiner's report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, be sustained on an inconclusive Chemical Examiner's report?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish the evidentiary requirements for a narcotic recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishaque vs The State2021 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19
  post-arrest bailqatl-i-amdcounter versiondelay in FIRfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after being refused the same by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan, in a case involving charges of qatl-i-amd, unlawful assembly, and related offenses. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of alleged false implication, delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements, and the existence of an un-registered counter-version. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that the applicants are specifically named in the FIR with active roles attributing hatchet and fire-arm injuries, that a deeper appreciation of evidence is unwarranted at the bail stage, and that the absence of a registered counter-version distinguishes their case from precedents relied upon. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically nominated with active roles in a heinous crime, minor delays and un-registered counter-versions do not warrant the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted on the ground of delayed lodging of the FIR when the delay is explained?
  • Does the mere assertion of a counter-version without a registered FIR entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage in a case of qatl-i-amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Irum Malik vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of Pakistan, IslamabadPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 592, 2021 PLD Federal Shariat Court 28 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui and others vs Karachi Municipal Corporation (K.D.A.2021 PLD Sindh 312 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
• Irfanullah vs Standard Chartered Bank Of Pakistan through CEO/Executive2021 CLD 1345 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Irfanullah vs M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Of Pakistan through2021 PLJ Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irfan Zaman vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 789 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04
  murderdeath sentence commutationunproven motivemitigating circumstanceocular evidenceinjured witnessweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Irfan Zaman, under Section 302(b), 324, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Rabia Naz and injuries inflicted on an eyewitness, sentencing him to death and terms of imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular, medical, and forensic evidence, and whether the alleged motive was established. The Lahore High Court held that while the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon successfully proved the appellant's guilt for the offenses, the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive regarding a forced marriage. The court ruled that the failure to prove motive operates as a mitigating circumstance warranting the commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that the unestablished motive in a capital case serves as an extenuating circumstance justifying the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness along with medical and forensic corroboration is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the unproven motive set up in the first information report affect the quantum of sentence even when ocular and medical evidence is reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan vs The State2021 PHC 284, 2022 PCr. LJ 945 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Irfan ul Haq vs Mian Rashid Arsahd, etc2021 IHC 162 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-15Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs The State & another2021 PHC 320, 2022 P Cr.LJ 1222 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali and another vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 286 · Federal Shariat Court
  criminal appealretracted confessionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular evidencemedical evidencemurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements, and the reliability of retracted judicial confessions. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the lack of credible corroboration. The Court emphasized that an unexplained delay in FIR registration, especially when police were already in motion, creates room for fabrication and deliberation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that retracted confessions, which were recorded after significant delay and failed to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements or demonstrate voluntariness, are unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for the standard of proof required in criminal cases, necessitating acquittal when the prosecution's narrative is fundamentally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR and recording witness statements render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on retracted confessions that lack voluntariness and fail to comply with procedural requirements?
  • What is the legal effect of a material conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can suspicion, however grave, serve as a substitute for the standard of proof required in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Akbar Khan vs The State, etc2021 [M] C L R 1127, 2021 P Cr.LJ 1038, 2021 LHC 569 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02Read full judgment →
• Irfan Afridee vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlprohibitory clausemedical grounds bailepidermal cystchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Irfan Afridee, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 9(c), 14, 15, and 16 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of a huge quantity of opium and charas from vehicles, including 39.6 kilograms of opium from the vehicle he was travelling in. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on merits and on medical grounds due to an alleged neck tumor diagnosed as cancer. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the recovered contraband fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the medical board report confirmed the ailment was a suspected epidermal cyst rather than an incurable or life-threatening cancer untreatable in prison. The court laid down the principle that not every ailment entitles an accused to bail unless the disease is life-threatening or incapable of being treated within prison premises, while directing jail authorities to ensure proper medical care.

  Questions settled

  • Does recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • What level of illness is required for an accused to be released on bail on medical grounds?
  • Whether a suspected epidermal cyst constitutes a life-threatening disease warranting release on bail from prison?
  Read full judgment →
• Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd vs Abhishek Khanna & Others2021 SCInd 14 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-11
  consumer protectionunfair trade practicebuilder buyer agreementdelay in possessionRERArefund of depositone-sided contractoccupation certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of civil appeals was filed by a real estate developer challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order directing the refund of deposits to apartment buyers due to inordinate construction delays. The core legal questions were whether the commitment period for handing over possession commenced from the building plan sanction or the mandatory fire safety clearance; whether the terms of the builder-buyer agreement were one-sided and unfair; and whether the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA) has primacy over the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Supreme Court held that the possession period commenced from the date of the Fire NOC, as it was a mandatory statutory pre-condition. It further held that the agreement's terms were heavily one-sided, constituting an unfair trade practice, and thus did not bind the buyers. Additionally, the Court ruled that RERA does not bar consumer complaints, as its remedies are additional. Consequently, the Court ordered refunds with 9% simple interest for buyers whose towers lacked occupation certificates, while directing completed-tower buyers to accept possession with delay compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 bar the jurisdiction of consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
  • Whether one-sided clauses in an apartment buyer's agreement constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
  • Can a real estate developer compel apartment buyers to take possession of alternative units when there is an inordinate delay in completing the originally allotted units?
  • From which date should the commitment period for handing over possession be calculated when a fire safety clearance is a statutory pre-condition for starting construction?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqra Educational Society and another vs Board Of Intermediate And Secondary Education and others2021 LHC 7038 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-02Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs The State2021 YLR 1211 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencedelayed FIRmurder convictioncorroboration of evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence and the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court observed that an inordinate, unexplained delay of three and a half days in lodging the FIR, coupled with material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, rendered the ocular account unreliable. Furthermore, the Court noted that since the co-accused had been acquitted due to unreliable testimony, the witnesses' evidence against the appellant required independent, strong corroboration, which was absent. The Court reiterated that medical evidence confirms the nature of injuries but cannot independently connect an accused to the crime, and that motive is a double-edged sword. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to connect an accused to a crime in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Is the testimony of witnesses who were found unreliable regarding a co-accused sufficient to convict another accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is motive considered a double-edged sword in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain Channa vs National Accountability Bureau & Others2021 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed vs NAB and Others2021 SHC 26 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Intizar Shah etc vs Alam Shair2021 PLJ Lahore 116 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
• Intizar Hussain vs The State and another2022 MLD 103 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycommon intentionforensic evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of participating in an attack on the complainant's house, resulting in the death of the deceased, Rashid, who was shot by a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not attributed with causing any specific injury to the deceased and whose father was declared innocent during the investigation, was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court held that because the petitioner was not alleged to have caused any specific injury and because forensic reports indicated that multiple weapons were involved, the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that vicarious liability is a matter for trial, and the mere heinousness of an offense is insufficient to deny bail when reasonable doubt exists regarding the specific role of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused in a murder case entitle them to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when forensic evidence suggests the use of multiple weapons not fully accounted for in the investigation?
  • Is the heinousness of an offense a sufficient ground to refuse bail when the case falls under the category of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Intikhab Ameer and 3 others vs State and another2021 YLR 1031, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 26 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-28
  Qatl-i-Amdcapital sentencingmitigating circumstancesocular evidenceright of private defenceforensic evidencemurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction of four appellants for the murder of Qalab Abbas Shah and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, the validity of the appellants' plea of self-defence, and the impact of the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive on the quantum of sentence. The Court held that while the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the recoveries of weapons were unreliable due to delayed forensic analysis. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions but modified the sentences, reducing the death penalty of the principal accused to life imprisonment and reducing the sentences of other appellants. The judgment reaffirms that while related witnesses are credible if consistent, the failure to prove an alleged motive constitutes a significant mitigating factor in capital sentencing, and a plea of self-defence must be substantiated by evidence rather than mere suggestions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution's failure to prove an alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for the quantum of sentence in a murder case?
  • Can a plea of self-defence be sustained solely on the basis of suggestions put to prosecution witnesses during cross-examination?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon reliable if the forensic analysis of blood stains is delayed beyond the period of blood disintegration?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be rejected solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• International Brands (Pvt.) Limited vs Maulana Noor Muhammad Qureshi2021 YLR 1668 · Sindh High Court · 2013-01-10Read full judgment →
• Inspector Syed Saeed Akhtar Naqvi and Others vs Province of Sindh and Others2021 SHC 612 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• Inspector General Police Azad Government Of The State Of Jammu &2021 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 21 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Inspector General Of Prison,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others vs Habib Ullah2021 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-30
  sentence remissionAnti-Terrorism ActOffence of Zinaprison rulesconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent sentencesconvict rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, challenging a High Court judgment that granted sentence remissions to a convict, Habib Ullah. The respondent was convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a convict serving concurrent sentences for offenses under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, is entitled to remissions. The Supreme Court held that while Section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, explicitly bars remissions for convictions under that Act, no such statutory bar exists for convictions under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. However, relying on the precedent in Nazar Hussain v. The State, the Court affirmed that remissions granted under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 do not extend to convicts serving sentences under the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court allowed the respondent to claim remissions permissible under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prisons Rules, 2018, only after completing the sentence for the Anti-Terrorism Act conviction, while denying remissions under Article 45.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict sentenced under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, entitled to remissions in their sentence?
  • Can remissions granted under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be applied to a sentence awarded under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Are remissions under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prisons Rules, 2018, available to a convict serving concurrent sentences for both anti-terrorism and non-anti-terrorism offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Insaf and another vs The State2021 YLR 338 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-06
  post-arrest baildacoitytentative assessmentrecovery of stolen propertycall data recordprohibitory clausedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by applicants accused in FIRs 13 and 14 of 2019, registered for dacoity under section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations of their involvement in heinous offences, the recovery of stolen property, and the use of mobile phones linked to the applicants via Call Data Records (CDR). The court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail, as the material on record, including the recovery of snatched items and the connection established through CDRs, provided sufficient prima facie evidence linking them to the offences. The court affirmed that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is required, and deeper appreciation is unnecessary. Furthermore, the court held that while delay in lodging an FIR is a factor, it is not sufficient grounds for bail unless supported by other circumstances, and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is delay in lodging an FIR sufficient ground for the grant of bail in the absence of other supporting circumstances?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property and incriminating Call Data Records provide sufficient grounds to deny bail for offences falling under the prohibitory clause?
  • To what extent can a court evaluate evidence at the post-arrest bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Inhaf Ullah vs The State and another2021 SCMR 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-07
  abduction for ransomtest identification paradejudicial interventioncriminal appealstandard of proofwitness testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for the abduction of a child for ransom. The petitioner was convicted under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment, while six co-accused were acquitted by the High Court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, specifically regarding identification, and the propriety of the trial judge's intervention during witness examination. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from glaring discrepancies, including the lack of a test identification parade as required under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the failure of the complainant to identify the petitioner without judicial prompting. The Court emphasized that while trial judges possess the authority to question witnesses, such power must be exercised with extreme caution to maintain neutrality. The Court ruled that the trial judge's intervention to secure identification undermined the testimony's integrity. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted, establishing that judicial intervention to fill gaps in prosecution evidence is impermissible and that identification in the dock without prior testing is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when identification of the accused is secured solely through the intervention of the presiding judge in the dock?
  • Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade undermine the prosecution's case in an abduction for ransom charge?
  • To what extent can a trial judge intervene to question a witness during examination-in-chief without compromising judicial neutrality?
  Read full judgment →
• Inhaf Ullah vs The State & another2021 P SC (Crl.) 784 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-04-07
  abduction for ransomdock identificationtest identification paradejudicial neutralitycriminal appealappreciation of evidencejudicial intervention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the abduction of a child for ransom. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence, specifically regarding the identification of the accused and the credibility of the prosecution's narrative, given that the trial court prompted the witness to identify the appellant during examination-in-chief. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to glaring discrepancies in the prosecution's account, the absence of a test identification parade, and the improper judicial intervention that effectively filled gaps in the prosecution's evidence. The Court emphasized that while trial judges possess the authority to question witnesses, such power must be exercised with extreme caution to maintain judicial neutrality. Furthermore, the Court ruled that dock identification, absent a prior test identification parade, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the appellant acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dock identification of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of a test identification parade?
  • To what extent can a trial judge intervene to question a witness during examination-in-chief without compromising judicial neutrality?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in a joint criminal charge necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused if the prosecution's case is undermined?
  Read full judgment →
• Indus Motor Company Limited through Duly Authorized Officer vs Federation2021 PTD 460 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-22
  fiscal statute interpretationsubstitution of legislative provisioncapital gains taxwrit jurisdictionprospective applicationcharging sectionshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging show-cause notices issued by tax authorities regarding the interpretation of Division VII of Part 1 of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, following its substitution by the Finance Act 2016. The core legal question was whether the legislative substitution of Division VII resulted in the deletion of the pre-existing provisos governing tax rates on debt securities and mutual funds, or if those provisos survived. The Court held that the term substituted signifies the replacement of the entire provision, thereby deleting the old provisos. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned show-cause notices for the post-amendment period, ruling that collection mechanisms cannot override the charging section. Furthermore, the Court determined that the amendment applies prospectively, not retrospectively, dismissing the petition regarding the pre-amendment tax year. The key principle laid down is that fiscal statutes must be strictly construed, and where the legislature uses the term substituted, it implies the replacement of the entire provision, effectively deleting the previous text unless otherwise specified.

  Questions settled

  • Does the substitution of a legislative provision by a Finance Act result in the deletion of the entire previous provision including its provisos?
  • Can a collection mechanism in a tax schedule override the charging section of a fiscal statute?
  • Are amendments introduced via Finance Acts generally applicable retrospectively or prospectively?
  • Is a show-cause notice justiciable in writ jurisdiction when it involves an important question of law without factual dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Indrais vs The State2021 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquirymala fideprohibitory clausedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking pre-arrest bail in a case involving a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of fraud, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the existence of ongoing civil litigation between the parties. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over two months, the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and there was a pre-existing civil dispute between the parties regarding account settlements. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and there is significant unexplained delay in the FIR, coupled with ongoing civil litigation, a case for further inquiry and mala fide is established, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an offence involving a dishonoured cheque considered to be within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a court grant or cancel bail when a trial is already in progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Indian Bank and another vs Mahaveer Khariwal2021 SCInd 36 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 PLD Lahore 288 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24
  judicial reviewinstrumentality of governmentpublic private partnershipcontract awardlocus standipublic interest litigationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses two consolidated constitutional petitions filed by Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (IMC) and Blitz Advertising (Pvt.) Ltd., challenging a business partnership agreement and joint venture formed between Pakistan Television Corporation Limited (PTVC) and private entities ARY Communications Limited and GroupM Pakistan Private Limited for Pakistan Super League (PSL) TV broadcast rights. The core legal questions involved whether PTVC qualifies as an instrumentality or agency of the Government amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, the scope of judicial review in commercial transactions and contract awards by state-owned corporations, and whether the petitioners possessed the requisite locus standi to challenge the joint venture either in a private capacity or through public interest litigation. Holding that PTVC is indeed an instrumentality of the Government under functional realism, the Court nevertheless dismissed both petitions. It ruled that PTVC had transparently invited proposals through public advertisement, that the petitioners participated or had notice and could not challenge the process after failing to secure the contract, and that the litigation was motivated by private economic interests rather than genuine public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Pakistan Television Corporation Limited is an instrumentality or agency of the Government amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • What is the scope of judicial review regarding commercial transactions and the award of contracts by government-owned corporations?
  • Can an unsuccessful bidder who failed to submit a proposal in response to a public advertisement challenge a subsequent joint venture agreement?
  • Under what circumstances can a petitioner maintain a constitutional petition under the guise of public interest litigation when motivated by private commercial interests?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs Province of Sindh and Others2021 SHC 630 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13
  constitutional petitiontransfer and postingterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of High Courtservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant holding the post of Principal (BS-20), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge a notification regarding his transfer and posting. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the transfer and posting of a civil servant, given the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including transfer and posting, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot insist on a posting to a particular location, and the constitutional ouster under Article 212 bars the High Court from interfering in service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Whether matters relating to transfer and posting fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a civil servant insist on being posted to a particular location under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan & others vs Shabir Ahmad Khan2021 P SC 707, 2021 SCMR 686, 2021 SCP 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-10
  specific performancecontract validityvoid for uncertaintybona fide purchaserwithout noticeTransfer of Property ActSpecific Relief ActContract Actlis pendensreadiness and willingness
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging judgments that decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of an inchoate document, titled 'Receipt/Agreement', which lacked essential particulars such as land description, area, total sale consideration, and payment terms. The Court also considered the protection afforded to subsequent bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as well as the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. The Court held that the document was void for uncertainty under Section 29 of the Contract Act, 1872, and that an unsigned, unreferenced 'page' could not cure its deficiencies. It further ruled that subsequent purchasers, having bought the land before the suit was filed, were protected as bona fide purchasers without notice, and the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable. The plaintiff's failure to tender or deposit the balance sale consideration promptly also weighed against specific performance. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the suit for specific performance.

  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and another vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 970 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Inayat N. Din and Others vs Salman Talibuddin and Others2021 SHC 342 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Inayat N. Din and 4 others vs Salman Talibuddin, Advocate General, Sindh2020 PLD Sindh 539 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Inayat Masih and another vs Waqar Ahmad and another2021 SHC 758 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Inamullah Khan Mazari vs Bank Al-Falah & 3 others2021 LHC 4559, 2022 PLJ Lahore 51 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Inam-Ul-Haq vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and another2021 CLC 2072 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Inam Ullah vs The State, etc2021 SCP 312, 2022 PSC CRI 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-13
  pre-arrest bailsuccessive bail applicationad interim bailabuse of processmaintainabilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's second pre-arrest bail petition by the High Court in a case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously withdrawn his first pre-arrest bail petition without advancing arguments on the merits and subsequently filed a second petition, enjoying ad interim bail in both instances. The core legal question was whether a second or successive pre-arrest bail petition is maintainable after the withdrawal of an earlier petition without a satisfactory explanation. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, holding that while an accused may file a fresh pre-arrest bail petition after withdrawing a previous one without arguments, the second petition cannot be entertained nor ad interim bail granted unless the accused provides a satisfactory explanation for the withdrawal. Failing such explanation, successive petitions constitute an abuse of the court's process, rendering the second petition unmaintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second pre-arrest bail petition maintainable after the withdrawal of an earlier petition without arguments on merits in the absence of a satisfactory explanation?
  • Can an accused person be granted ad interim pre-arrest bail on a successive bail petition without providing a valid justification for withdrawing the previous one?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam Golo and another vs The State2021 SHC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14
  criminal appealacquittal appealremanddue processprocedural irregularitySection 342 statementright to counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated appeals: a criminal appeal against conviction filed by Inam and Gamthar, and a criminal acquittal appeal filed by the complainant against Sardar, Peroz, and Abdul Fattah. The appellants were convicted of murder by the trial court, while the private respondents were acquitted. Upon review, the High Court identified significant procedural irregularities in the trial process. Specifically, the complainant's evidence was recorded in the absence of the private respondents' counsel, violating the constitutional right to be dealt with in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the trial court failed to confront the accused persons with critical evidence, including the Chemical/Ballistic Expert report and the recovery of the crime weapon, during their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, holding that these omissions resulted in a failure of justice. The court remanded the case for a de novo trial, directing that the complainant's evidence be recorded afresh in the presence of defense counsel and that the accused be properly confronted with all incriminating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of prosecution evidence in the absence of the accused's counsel constitute a violation of the right to be dealt with in accordance with law?
  • Is a trial court required to confront an accused with the Chemical/Ballistic Expert report and recovery of crime weapons during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be set aside and a case remanded for fresh trial due to procedural omissions in recording evidence and examining the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2021 vs N/A2021 SCMR 1609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-23
  suo motu jurisdictionoriginal jurisdictionprocedural proprietyjudicial disciplineconstitutional interpretationSupreme Court practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the procedural propriety of invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The case arose after a two-member bench took suo motu notice of grievances presented by journalists via an unregistered application directly entertained in court, rather than through established judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court addressed whether such a departure from settled procedural norms for invoking suo motu jurisdiction is permissible. The Court held that it is essential to maintain a consistent procedural scheme to ensure credibility and certainty in the exercise of its constitutional powers. Consequently, the Court determined that it was inappropriate to implement the initial order while the fundamental question regarding the proper invocation of suo motu jurisdiction remained unresolved. The Court directed that the initial order be held in abeyance pending further deliberation on the procedural requirements for initiating suo motu actions, emphasizing that the substantive grievances of the applicants would not be addressed until the jurisdictional procedure was clarified and settled.

  Questions settled

  • How is the suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to be invoked?
  • Can a bench of the Supreme Court initiate suo motu proceedings based on an unregistered application received directly in court?
  • Is it appropriate to implement a judicial order that departs from settled procedural norms while the validity of that procedure is under review?
  Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2021 vs Not2021 PSC 1250, 2021 SCMR 1612, 2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 365, KLR 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-08-26
  suo motu jurisdictionChief Justice of Pakistanconstitutional jurisdictionSupreme Court powersbench constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2021 regarding the exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question concerned the proper authority and procedure for invoking and assuming suo motu jurisdiction. The Court held and declared that the Chief Justice of Pakistan is the sole authority empowered to invoke or assume suo motu jurisdiction, either in his discretion or upon the request or recommendation of a Bench, and that no Bench may initiate any suo motu proceedings or take related steps without prior invocation by the Chief Justice. Consequently, the previous order dated 20.08.2021 was recalled, pending matters were directed to be handled by Benches constituted by the Chief Justice, and the case along with related filings was disposed of.

  Questions settled

  • Who is the sole authority to invoke or assume the suo motu jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a Bench of the Supreme Court take steps or make orders in the nature of suo motu exercise without the Chief Justice invoking the jurisdiction?
  • How are pending matters involving suo motu jurisdiction to be heard and disposed of?
  Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Chief Revenue Authority_Member (RS&Ep) Board of Revenue Sindh, Karachi vs N_a2021 SHC 822 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Imtiaz Khan vs Ministry Of Defence Government Of Pakistan through Defence Secretary of Pakistan Pasb Secretariat, Rawalpindi and 4 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-16
  pensionary benefitsdaily wages employmentqualifying serviceCivil Aviation Authoritystatutory bodywrit jurisdictionvested rightregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) employee, filed this constitutional petition seeking to include his nine-year daily-wage service period in his qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The core legal questions were whether the CAA is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether an employee can be contractually barred from counting prior daily-wage service toward pension entitlement. The Court held that the CAA is a statutory body, and its service regulations are statutory, rendering the petition maintainable. The Court further ruled that the condition in the petitioner's regularization order, which waived his right to count prior daily-wage service, was the result of compulsion and therefore unenforceable. The Court established that pension is a vested right and not a bounty; consequently, continuous daily-wage service followed by regularization must be counted toward qualifying service under the Civil Service Regulations. State functionaries cannot impose coercive conditions to deprive employees of their legal rights to pensionary benefits, and such actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Civil Aviation Authority a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an employee be legally barred from counting prior daily-wage service towards pensionary benefits through a conditional regularization agreement?
  • Does continuous daily-wage service followed by regularization count towards qualifying service for pension under the Civil Service Regulations?
  • Is the right to pension a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily abridged by an employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain vs Province of Sindh and 10 others2021 SHC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-22
  quo warrantoconstitutional jurisdictioncivil servantsdisciplinary proceedingscorruptiondisputed questions of factNAB referenceadministrative posting
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a writ of quo warranto against various government officials, alleging massive corruption and mismanagement within the Culture, Tourism, and Antiquities Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, could adjudicate disputed factual allegations of corruption and direct the removal of civil servants facing pending criminal or disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that it could not determine the veracity of the disputed factual allegations, as these were beyond the scope of its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, it directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to investigate the allegations and ensure that civil servants facing pending NAB references or disciplinary proceedings are not assigned administrative postings until such matters are legally concluded. The Court established the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, it underscored that government departments must expedite disciplinary proceedings against civil servants to prevent administrative uncertainty and that officials facing active corruption references should not hold administrative positions during the pendency of such proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding corruption in a constitutional petition?
  • Are civil servants facing pending NAB references or disciplinary proceedings entitled to hold administrative positions?
  • Is a writ of quo warranto an appropriate remedy for allegations of corruption against public officials?
  • Must disciplinary proceedings against government servants be concluded within a reasonable time?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz alias Tajoo vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 55 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-03
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Actunder-trial prisoner
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Imtiaz alias Tajoo in case FIR No. 289/2020 registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Saddar Samundri, Faisalabad, concerning the alleged recovery of 1460 grams of 'bhokhi'. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case, considering evidentiary gaps and statutory parameters. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, noting that the petitioner was a first-time offender, the FIR lacked the time of the alleged occurrence, no private witnesses were cited, and investigation was complete with no progress in the trial due to Covid-19. The key principle laid down is that where the recovery of narcotics lacks corroborative details such as time and private witnesses, and the accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial incarceration without progress in the trial, a case for further inquiry is made out warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of the time of occurrence in the FIR makes the case one for further inquiry?
  • Does the lack of private witnesses for the recovery of narcotics justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether prolonged incarceration of an under-trial prisoner without trial progress due to Covid-19 is a ground for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed Shahid, Advocate High Court, Quetta vs The Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Health Department, Quetta2021 PLD Balochistan 134 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
• Irfan Rasheed vs Muhammad Muazim, etc2021 LHC 5187, 2022 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-16
  specific performancebalance sale considerationreadiness and willingnesscivil procedurediscretionary jurisdictioncontract enforcementbona fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Civil Judge's order dismissing a suit for specific performance due to the plaintiff's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration. The core legal question was whether a trial court may dismiss such a suit for non-deposit without providing an explicit, unambiguous warning of that specific consequence. The High Court held that the trial court’s vague warning that an "order shall be passed in accordance with law" was insufficient to justify dismissal. The court ruled that while trial courts possess the discretionary power to order the deposit of balance sale consideration to establish the plaintiff's bona fides and readiness under Section 24(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, such dismissal is only permissible if the plaintiff has been clearly notified that non-compliance will result in the suit's dismissal. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside. Furthermore, the Court established mandatory guidelines for lower courts, requiring them to order deposits upon taking cognizance, limit opportunities to two, and issue explicit, standalone warnings regarding the consequences of non-compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss a suit for specific performance for non-deposit of balance sale consideration without an explicit prior warning of such a consequence?
  • Does the phrase "order shall be passed in accordance with law" constitute sufficient notice for the dismissal of a suit for non-deposit of sale consideration?
  • Is it mandatory for a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance to deposit the balance sale consideration in court to demonstrate readiness and willingness?
  • What guidelines must civil courts follow regarding the deposit of balance sale consideration in suits for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs The State2021 PHC 292 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed Ghulam Rasool Janvery vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others2021 IHC 298 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad and another vs The State and others2022 MLD 663, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 337, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 297 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08
  murdersupplementary statementnomination of accusedbenefit of doubtprivate complaintocular accountmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, stemming from a private complaint filed after an initial FIR registered against unknown persons. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account following delayed nomination through a supplementary statement, the evidentiary value of motive, medical evidence, and delayed reporting of alleged police mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that where an FIR is registered against unknown persons and well-known accused are subsequently nominated via a delayed supplementary statement, it amounts to an afterthought and dishonest improvement, rendering the prosecution story doubtful. The Court reiterated that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the criminal appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside resulting in the appellant's acquittal, and the revision petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the nomination of known accused persons through a supplementary statement after registering an FIR against unknown persons constitutes a dishonest improvement?
  • Can medical evidence alone identify the assailant in the absence of a credible ocular account?
  • Whether a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive when the ocular testimony is not trustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ims Health Pakistan (Private) Limited through Authorized Officer and others2022 PTD 576 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-29Read full judgment →
• Imran vs The State through VIIth Anti-Terrorism Court inside Central Prison, at Karachi2021 P Cr. L J 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-08
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtburden of proofexplosive substancesanti-terrorismacquittalmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, following a bomb blast that resulted in fatalities. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the appellant's presence inside the premises where the bomb was prepared, thereby linking him to the criminal act. Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the medical evidence indicated the appellant’s injuries were consistent with being a passerby rather than someone present in the room during the explosion, and no evidence placed him inside the building. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused, who is entitled to the benefit of any doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused when a specific plea is raised in defense?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a concession or a right of the accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an accused naming an accomplice without other corroborating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 243 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-02
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedishonest improvementsdeath sentenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for murder and causing injuries, resulting in a death sentence. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of ocular testimony, the consistency between medical and ocular evidence, and the validity of the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, citing significant contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and noting that the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements during trial. Furthermore, the court found the motive unproven and the forensic recovery report negative. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses; where ocular testimony is inconsistent, unreliable due to dishonest improvements, or conflicts with medical evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Does the making of dishonest improvements by eye-witnesses render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case on its own merits without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  • Does the mere presence of an injury on a witness's body automatically make them a truthful witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1050 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-23
  murderocular evidencechance witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentencepost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on ocular testimony from alleged chance witnesses and the existence of significant procedural delays. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court observed that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses who provided no plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene and failed to intervene during the alleged strangulation. Furthermore, the court noted an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination, which suggested the case was an unwitnessed occurrence. The alleged motive remained unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the weapon was deemed inconsequential. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence is doubtful and fails to stand on its own, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a post-mortem examination create doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be accepted without a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to substantiate the alleged motive for a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ullah and another vs The State2021 YLR 583 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-02-19
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsjoint recoverycompetence of officerchemical examiner reportfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition arose from a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, where police allegedly recovered 2000 grams of contraband charas from a vehicle occupied by the petitioners. The core legal questions before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court were whether a joint recovery memo is admissible in evidence, whether an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector is competent to conduct a search and arrest under the Act, and the effect of the non-receipt of the Chemical Examiner's report. The Court held that under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, only an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector is authorized to search, seize, and arrest without a warrant, making the search by a Head Constable unauthorized. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a joint recovery memo is inadmissible and the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report after two months made the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector is competent to conduct a search, seizure, and arrest under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint recovery memo prepared for contraband recovered from a vehicle occupied by multiple accused?
  • Does the non-availability of the Chemical Examiner's report for an extended period after arrest render a narcotics case one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Saeed Malik vs Appellate Authority & 3 others2021 LHC 4454, 2022 CLC 312 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-17Read full judgment →
• Imran Hussain and another vs The State and another2022 PTD 452 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30
  post-arrest bailsmugglingcustoms actfurther inquiryrecovery of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under the Customs Act, 1969, concerning the alleged smuggling of items recovered from the petitioners' luggage at an airport. The core legal question is whether the petitioners have made out a case for further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the lack of booking tags, missing CCTV footage, absence of ownership evidence, and unverified valuation of the recovered goods. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of luggage tags, lack of verification regarding the booking of the luggage, failure to obtain forensic or registration certificates for mobile numbers, and lack of any documentation showing how the value of the goods was assessed collectively render the case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where foundational elements of the prosecution's case regarding possession, recovery, and valuation are unverified and lacking supporting documentation, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of luggage tags and booking information linking the accused to the recovered luggage makes the case one of further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to bring on record a forensic report or mobile registration certificate for alleged communication justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is an unverified assessment of the value of recovered goods relevant to determining entitlement to post-arrest bail under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Faazal vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1097 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquirypolice custodyindependent witnessprocedural discrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 2210 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the narcotics, effected while the petitioner was in police custody for a separate offense, warranted the grant of bail pending trial. The Court observed significant discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, noting that the recovery was allegedly made from a private residence without independent witnesses despite the location being a populated area. Furthermore, the Court highlighted inconsistencies regarding the timing of the recovery as recorded in the case diary versus the FIR. The Court held that these factors rendered the petitioner's guilt a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that procedural lapses in recovery proceedings, such as the absence of independent witnesses in a populated area, constitute valid grounds for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery in a populated area justify further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there are significant discrepancies in the timing of the recovery?
  • Is a positive chemical examiner report sufficient to deny bail when the recovery proceedings themselves are subject to doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ali vs SP Jamshoro2021 SHC 914 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Imran Ali vs Mst. Shahina Irfan and others2021 SHC 910 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Imperial Chemical Industries PLC vs The Registrar of Trade Marks and another2021 SHC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-01Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali Jakhro vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1302 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali Abro & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
• Imamuddin vs The State2022 YLR 963 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-03
  dishonestly receiving stolen propertycriminal revisionexclusive possessionburden of proofacquittalrecoverystolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the applicant under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly receiving stolen property. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically the accused's exclusive possession and knowledge that the property was stolen. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the recovered item did not match the description in the FIR, and the prosecution failed to establish exclusive possession or the accused's dishonest knowledge. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the applicant. The judgment lays down the principle that mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution must affirmatively prove that the accused had exclusive possession and received or retained the property with the dishonest knowledge or belief that it was stolen. Failure to prove these elements entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to sustain a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is mere possession of stolen property sufficient to establish an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Din etc vs Government Of Pakistan etc2021 PLJ Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Imam Din and others vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Minority and Religious Affairs and others2021 YLR 894 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh vs District Collector, Dera Ghazi Khan and 5 others2021 PLJ Lahore 787 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-11Read full judgment →
• Imad Samad vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 690 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Imad Samad and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Commerce and 3 others2021 PTD 2063 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
• Ilyas vs Waris Khan, etc2021 SCMR 1479, 2021 SCP 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-06
  criminal appealacquittalmurderreappraisal of evidenceocular evidenceinvestigative flawsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal against the acquittal of respondents by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case. The deceased, Akhtar Begum, was shot dead, allegedly by her husband, Waris Khan, and his brother, Karamat Ali, in retaliation for her filing a suit for dissolution of marriage. The trial court had convicted the respondents under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to death and life imprisonment, respectively. The High Court subsequently overturned these convictions, citing flaws in the investigative process. The petitioner challenged the High Court's judgment, arguing that the court placed disproportionate reliance on minor investigative discrepancies while ignoring formidable ocular evidence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence. The Court held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a re-examination of the evidence is necessary to secure the ends of justice, thereby setting the stage for a full review of the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment by a High Court?
  • Does the presence of minor investigative flaws automatically invalidate strong ocular evidence in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 453 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-16
  murderdeath sentence commutationocular evidencemedical corroborationextenuating circumstancesfailure of motivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his sister-in-law, Mst. Shazia Bibi, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the alleged motive and recovery of the weapon, and whether the capital sentence was appropriate given the evidentiary findings. The Court held that while the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive or prove the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, noting the absence of repeated firing, the Court determined that the death sentence was not warranted. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to prove motive and recovery, and where there is no evidence of repeated firing, such factors constitute extenuating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained if the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and weapon recovery?
  • Does the absence of repeated firing by an accused constitute an extenuating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can the evidence of close relatives be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship to the deceased in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ali vs The State and another2022 YLR 632 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe custody of case propertycriminal appealsentencing reductionforensic analysisnarcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the appellant's conviction and seven-year sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2150 grams of heroin. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction was sustainable despite evidentiary deficiencies. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the sample parcels, as the official who deposited the property was not produced, and the relevant Register 19 was not presented in evidence. Additionally, discrepancies were noted between the separated sample weight and the forensic report weight. While the conviction was maintained, the Court, applying the principle that sentencing should align with the proved quantity of narcotics and established sentencing policies, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. The judgment emphasizes that strict adherence to the chain of custody is mandatory in narcotics cases, and failure to account for the movement of case property undermines the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the official who deposited the case property in the malkhana constitute a break in the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be maintained if the prosecution fails to produce the relevant Register 19?
  • Is the sentence for narcotics possession subject to reduction if the chain of custody is not strictly proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ali vs Robina Kausar and others2021 MLD 1275 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-18Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed Bajwa, Ex-Postmaster, Sialkot vs Divisional Superintendent2021 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 32 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service appealde novo inquirydisciplinary proceedingsmisconductright of cross-examinationback benefitsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the dismissal of a Postmaster following disciplinary proceedings. The appellant challenged his dismissal, arguing that the department failed to conduct a proper de novo inquiry as previously directed by the Tribunal, specifically alleging a lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and procedural irregularities. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings complied with the mandatory requirements of a fair inquiry and the Tribunal's previous remand order. The Tribunal held that the respondent-department failed to comply with the earlier judgment, as no fresh evidence was recorded and the appellant was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned dismissal orders, reinstated the appellant, and directed the department to conduct a fresh de novo inquiry within six months, with back benefits contingent upon the inquiry's outcome. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary authorities must strictly adhere to procedural fairness, including the recording of fresh evidence and the provision of cross-examination opportunities during a remanded inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to record fresh evidence during a remanded disciplinary inquiry invalidate the subsequent penalty?
  • Is an accused civil servant entitled to cross-examine witnesses during a de novo inquiry?
  • Can a disciplinary authority impose a penalty if the mandatory procedural requirements of a fair inquiry are not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed alias Jajji vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1093 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-15
  criminal appealnarcotics controlcharas recoveryforensic science reportchemical examiner reportprotocols of analysisacquittalcontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 1120 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether a forensic report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency that lacks detailed testing protocols and analysis methods constitutes sufficient and admissible proof under the law to sustain a narcotics conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the forensic report failed to meet the mandatory requirements of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 and binding precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, rendering it unreliable and inadmissible. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does a forensic report issued by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency without detailing the full testing protocols qualify as a valid piece of evidence?
  • Whether the failure to comply with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 renders a chemical report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained solely on the basis of an inadmissible forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad and others vs Khizar Hayat and others2021 LHC 6957 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ihtisham Ali Cheema vs The State and another2021 PSC (Crl.) 1006, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 22, 2022 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-21
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtcriminal investigationright to libertyFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a Lahore High Court order that denied the petitioner pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324/337-D/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations of firearm injury and the findings of the police investigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief, converting the petition into an appeal and confirming the pre-arrest bail. The Court reasoned that the investigation revealed the petitioner was empty-handed and that the firearm injury was actually caused by a co-accused, from whom the weapon was recovered. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained 24-hour delay in FIR registration and inconsistencies in the medical evidence. The key principle laid down is that while pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, courts must intervene to prevent injustice when investigation findings cast doubt on the prosecution's case, and the benefit of doubt may be extended at the bail stage to protect the constitutional right to liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does an investigation report finding an accused empty-handed constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah and others vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-09
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtjoint identification paradeocular accountmurder referenceappreciation of evidencerecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against convictions and sentences of death and life imprisonment imposed by the trial court for murder and dacoity. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of a joint identification parade, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular account doubtful, noting discrepancies between the FIR and medical evidence, and the unexplained absence of intervention by the complainant. Furthermore, the court ruled that a joint identification parade of multiple accused persons is legally invalid. The court also dismissed the evidentiary value of recoveries made from open, accessible places and noted the lack of corroboration. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint identification parade of multiple accused persons valid in law?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does the prosecution have to prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses?
  • Is a single circumstance creating doubt sufficient to acquit an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali vs The State and 2 others2022 MLD 70 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-09
  criminal revisionprivate complaintcourt witnessespolice challansimultaneous proceedingsjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the trial court that declined to summon two specific witnesses, Rang Ali and Nazir Hussain, as court witnesses in a private complaint case regarding a murder. The petitioner argued that these witnesses, who were part of the police challan case, were necessary for the private complaint proceedings. The core legal question was whether the trial court was obligated to summon these witnesses as court witnesses under the principles established in Nur Elahi's case (PLD 1966 SC 708). The court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to summon the witnesses. It distinguished the present matter from Nur Elahi, noting that in the current case, the complainant, witnesses, and accused in the FIR case and the private complaint were entirely different, and the cases were proceeding simultaneously rather than sequentially. The court affirmed that the petitioner retains the right to examine these individuals as defence witnesses if deemed necessary, and thus, there was no ground for interference with the trial court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to summon witnesses from a police challan case as court witnesses in a private complaint case when the parties and prosecution stories are entirely different?
  • Does the procedure laid down in Nur Elahi's case apply when the private complaint and the police FIR case are proceeding simultaneously with different complainants and accused?
  • Can an accused examine witnesses cited in a police challan case as defence witnesses in a private complaint case?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali vs Gul Rehman and another2021 SCMR 1490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-12
  leave to appealacquittalocular accountplea of alibisite plan discrepanciesmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent, Gul Rehman, by the Peshawar High Court, which had overturned his conviction and life sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Fazal Ilahi. The petitioner challenged the acquittal, arguing that the High Court erred by focusing on peripheral issues despite overwhelming ocular evidence from natural witnesses. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the High Court's reasoning, which had relied on an unproven plea of alibi and minor discrepancies in the site plan that were not confronted to the witnesses during trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's general observations did not invalidate the consistent ocular account from local witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the entire evidence to secure the ends of justice, and ordered the issuance of a bailable warrant for the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court rely on discrepancies in a site plan to overturn a conviction if those discrepancies were not confronted to the witnesses during the trial?
  • Whether a plea of alibi can be accepted to overturn a conviction when the supporting witness and the accused both failed to testify in court?
  • Is the unscathed survival of eyewitnesses in a shooting incident a sufficient ground by itself to treat their testimony with suspicion?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed alias Imtiaz and another vs The State2022 YLR 84 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-13
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtkidnapping for ransomcriminal appealanti-terrorismlast seen evidenceinadmissible confessiondelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellants for kidnapping for ransom and murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence—specifically pointation, alleged last-seen evidence, and recovery of a dead body—was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court identified critical gaps in the evidence, including an unexplained 27-day delay in FIR registration, the absence of medical evidence confirming the cause of death, the inadmissibility of police confessions, and the unreliability of the 'last seen' witness. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and if any single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is an unexplained 27-day delay in registering an FIR sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the cause of death is not medically established?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible in evidence against an accused or a co-accused?
  • Does the recovery of a dead body at the pointation of an accused, without other corroborative evidence, constitute sufficient proof of murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State2021 PLD Supreme Court 799, 2021 SCP 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-14
  post-arrest bailbailforgerycheatingcriminal breach of trustdiscretionary bailprohibitory clausebail cancellationconstitutional binding
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, accused under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC for allegedly forging a sale deed of a rented property. The core legal question addressed was whether the lower courts had correctly exercised their discretion under Section 497 CrPC, particularly regarding offences not falling within its prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts failed to adhere to the established principle that grant of bail in offences not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) CrPC is a rule, and refusal is an exception. The Court reiterated that refusal is justified only by specific circumstances such as likelihood of abscondence, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or repeating the offence, or other striking circumstances impeding trial or posing a societal threat. Finding no such circumstances mentioned by the lower courts or shown by the prosecution, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court are constitutionally binding under Article 189.

  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State & another2021 LHC 3583, 2022 MLD 459 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-29
  pre-arrest bailalibimala fideulterior motivevicarious liabilitybenefit of doubtqatal-e-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition by Iftikhar Ahmad seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chotala, District Jhelum. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner has established mala fide and an ulterior motive on the part of the complainant, and whether grounds for extraordinary pre-arrest bail relief exist, particularly where the petitioner's alibi is supported by biometric workplace records and an attempt by the complainant to alter the time of occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner successfully demonstrated prima facie mala fide and an ulterior motive due to the suspicious shifting of the time of the crime by the complainant to counter the petitioner's documented alibi. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that courts may examine the merits of a case at the pre-arrest stage, that the benefit of doubt applies even during bail adjudication, and that false implications arising from widening the net to include entire families warrant extraordinary protective relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person can be granted pre-arrest bail when a documented alibi prima facie contradicts the prosecution's timeline?
  • Can the merits of a case be examined by a court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the shifting of the time of occurrence by the complainant in a subsequent application constitutes mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the stage of bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Manzoor Ahmad (deceased) through LRs etc2021 MLD 833, 2021 LHC 103 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar & another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2021 PHC 342, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 855 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-21
  writ of mandamusvires of statuteallotment of official accommodationdiscriminatory legislationintelligible differentiatrichotomy of powersfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the vires of amendments made to Section 2 sub-clause (iv) and (v) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018, which included employees of the Provincial Assembly and Medical Teaching Institutions (MTI) as eligible for official residential accommodation, resulting in the cancellation of allotments previously held by employees of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether the inclusion of MTI and Provincial Assembly employees and the alleged exclusion of the petitioners amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. The Peshawar High Court held that the classification had a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved—specifically ensuring that medical staff required for emergencies are housed nearby—and was based on intelligible differentia under the principle of "Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto". Furthermore, the legislature possesses plenary law-making powers, and the court cannot interfere with policy matters or legislation in the absence of a violation of fundamental rights or legislative incompetence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendment to Section 2 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018, including MTI employees for residential accommodation, is discriminatory and ultra vires the Constitution?
  • Does the inclusion of Medical Teaching Institution employees for official accommodation based on emergency medical requirements satisfy the test of intelligible differentia?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a plenary legislation enacted by the provincial legislature in the absence of a proven violation of fundamental rights or lack of legislative competence?
  Read full judgment →
• IDBP Retired Officers Welfare Association & others and Abdul Hakim &2021 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Ullah vs The State2021 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-10-27
  Control of Narcotic Substances ActSection 9(c)official witnessespublic witnessesforensic reportrecovery of cannabisfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the conviction and sentence of six and a half years rigorous imprisonment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as affirmed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions pertained to whether the absence of private witnesses, minor discrepancies in official testimonies, and the lack of explicit protocols in a forensic report vitiated the prosecution case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and declined leave, holding that police officials are standard witnesses whose testimony is not inherently inferior to public witnesses. The Court laid down that public apathy in joining recoveries does not diminish the credibility of official witnesses when their testimonies on arrest and recovery are consistent, and that substantial quantities of narcotics cannot be assumed to be planted without evidence of strong motive.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of public witnesses automatically compromise the credibility of official witnesses in a narcotics recovery case?
  • Can a defense of false implication be sustained regarding a large quantity of recovered narcotics in the absence of a proven motive?
  • Does a forensic report carry evidentiary value if the procedure followed by the analyst is confirmed and acquiesced in during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibraheem Khan vs The State through Additional Advocate General, Peshawar and another2021 YLR 995 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04
  criminal appealtransposition of statementabsconding accusedright to fair trialcross-examinationsole eye-witnessremandmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi Malakand at Batkhela convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court legally transposed the previous statement of the sole eyewitness, recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the appellant's absconsion, without strict proof of the witness's non-availability or inability to attend, thereby violating the right to a fair trial and cross-examination. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to exercise due diligence and relied solely on a casual statement of a DFC without strict proof satisfying the requirements for admitting previous statements. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter back to the trial court to make all-out efforts to procure the attendance of the eyewitness for direct examination. The key principle laid down is that the transposition of a statement recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is an exceptional procedure that requires strict compliance, adherence to foundational proof of non-availability, and robust safeguards to protect the fundamental right to cross-examination and a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be transposed to the main trial without strict proof of the witness's non-availability?
  • Is the right to cross-examine witnesses an essential component of the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What degree of care and caution must a trial court exercise before resorting to exceptions to the general rule of recording viva voce evidence on oath?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibadullah vs The State, etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1120, 2021 IHC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-04-26
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious possessionfurther inquirycriminal procedurerecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an offense under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997. The petitioner was alleged to have facilitated the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle while in police custody for a separate offense. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established sufficient grounds to connect the petitioner to the contraband, specifically regarding the element of conscious possession. The Court observed that the Investigating Officer failed to establish any nexus between the petitioner and the vehicle, noting that no personal items of the petitioner were recovered from the car and the petitioner did not own the vehicle. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate conscious possession, making the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as punishment, the Court granted the petition, ruling that the lack of evidence connecting the accused to the contraband warranted the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of evidence connecting an accused to a vehicle from which narcotics were recovered constitute a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is conscious possession of narcotics a necessary element to be established by the prosecution to deny bail in narcotics cases?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• I.R NAB vs Muhammad Salim Arif2021 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Electric Supply Company, through Chief Executive Officer vs Qurban Ali Sahito and others2021 PLC 203 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-16
  constitutional petitionlabour lawreinstatementconcurrent findingsdue processtermination of servicedeceased quotaback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Sindh Labour Court and the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which ordered the reinstatement of the private respondent into the service of the petitioner-company. The respondent had been terminated following allegations that he failed to support the family of his deceased brother, whose employment quota he had utilized. The petitioner contended that the lower courts misread evidence, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to appreciate the nature of the respondent's appointment. The High Court examined whether the termination was lawful and whether the lower forums erred in their findings. The Court held that the termination was effected without due process, as no formal inquiry was conducted to substantiate the allegations. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is limited and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence where concurrent findings of fact have been reached by competent forums without material irregularity or legal infirmity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the reinstatement of the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by labour courts under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a formal inquiry mandatory before terminating an employee for misconduct?
  • Does a labour court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition filed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  • Can an employer terminate an employee without observing due process of law?
  Read full judgment →